It's like wanting chocolate ice cream one day, and vanilla another. Sure they are both ice cream but they still can be enjoyed :D
There is a trouble in your analogy - while playing games, you are the one who cooks. Game devs provide ingredients, but you need a skill to enjoy it. So more proper analogy would be a choice between chocolate ice cream that you know how to make and vanilla ice cream that needs a 500h in classes before you'll be able to make it as good aa the other one.
You most certainly do not cook the games, the devs do. UE5 etc provide the ingredients.
Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
Given the state of technology and development tools it only takes a handful of people to make an RTS these days. Its like teh industry has gone full circle.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
Yeah tbh i m not sure myself what i d like. But for example having never played the 2 precedent games, homeworld 3 feels interesting due to the 3d nature of it, so it s different. Wc3 and bw/sc2 played different too and they were thus both cool as well.
Or as you say may be a larger scale yeah where say you must take a planet or something and you can't see the other battlefields (in a team v team kinda way).
alternatively a XvX style where you re only in command of one type of units, for instance infantry vs air vs navy etc but you gotta work together. Maybe each of them has some macro to do, or needs to share some logistics in some fun way (fuel, food etc), or role sharing in resource gathering like infantry also mines resources, airforce and navy may deliver with cargo but you need to coordinate. Or even one player is the logistics and interacts with every body else? And maybe they can have some recon or intel or spying to make it fun for them too in logistics and not plain macro. Not sure i m explaining that well lol, but a mix of rts and role-playing in a way where you re in charge of one cog in the war machine.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
Yeah tbh i m not sure myself what i d like. But for example having never played the 2 precedent games, homeworld 3 feels interesting due to the 3d nature of it, so it s different. Wc3 and bw/sc2 played different too and they were thus both cool as well.
Or as you say may be a larger scale yeah where say you must take a planet or something and you can't see the other battlefields (in a team v team kinda way).
alternatively a XvX style where you re only in command of one type of units, for instance infantry vs air vs navy etc but you gotta work together. Maybe each of them has some macro to do, or needs to share some logistics in some fun way (fuel, food etc), or role sharing in resource gathering like infantry also mines resources, airforce and navy may deliver with cargo but you need to coordinate. Or even one player is the logistics and interacts with every body else? And maybe they can have some recon or intel or spying to make it fun for them too in logistics and not plain macro. Not sure i m explaining that well lol, but a mix of rts and role-playing in a way where you re in charge of one cog in the war machine.
Yeah I get what you mean, I mean it’d be a fucker to make it work properly but perhaps one day!
I occasionally read some big write up about some big feud and war in Eve online and while the game itself doesn’t appeal to me at all, that element of epic battles for territory and glory with thousands involved where the next time you log in the changes from those apocalyptic battles still remain and mean something is cool as fuck
Very interested in both. Stormgate's gameplay is pretty fun but feels like it has a long way to go. Zero Space has a cool aesthetic but I need to be able to try it out to know what's going on with it.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
Not really on topic but based on your posting history I wanted to mention there is a Terminator RTS which should be interesting to you (in case you missed it). Was released 5 days ago I believe, it mostly (only?) singleplayer campaign with lots of micro management and a pause function.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
Not really on topic but based on your posting history I wanted to mention there is a Terminator RTS which should be interesting to you (in case you missed it). Was released 5 days ago I believe, it mostly (only?) singleplayer campaign with lots of micro management and a pause function.
I've seen it. Looks kinda nice but at the same time doesn't look overly interesting. It does have a bit of a cinematic feel with how the battles look but unfortunately the units are a bit bland. Might be the result of them trying to keep it grounded and going more for the Terminator: Salvation vibe and aesthetic. The units are sometimes hard to discern from the terrain and the fights can take a long time - not necessarily a bad thing seeing how gorgeous it looks but it seems more like you're just a passive spectator rather than active orchestrator of the unfolding events.
I might give it a shot at some point but right now aside from pretty aesthetics it doesn't have much appeal for me (I'm more interested in Homeworld 3 and Tempest Rising at the moment).
I will say having played the beta, Stormgate is pretty fun. It needs a lot of work in every department, but once you get into a game it doesn't feel far from playing SC2
That's part of the problem though. It feels too similar to SC2 while at the same time not being as fun as SC2. I'm doubly unmotivated to play it for that reason. If it was a different enough experience to SC2 I could justify still wanting to play it just so I could play something different, but literally every game I played of the SG beta, I had to ask myself midgame why am I playing this instead of another game of SC2?
If you're going to make a game play almost exactly like a game that already exists it needs to be definitively BETTER than the game it's competing with. It isn't.
There's a TON of RTS games out there that manage to play very differently from each other to the point where I can like one more than the others but still want to play each of them at different times because I like the variety. I don't have that feeling for SG. I found no reason to want to keep playing it after I played the beta because it just felt too similar to SC2 while not being as fun.
Well for one, that the game will be supported going forward and have regular content/patches. Which SC2 certainly wont.
If you have criticism, post it and let the devs know, but if you expected a beta to live up to SC2 at 14 years of patches, then you set yourself up to be disappointed. The point of the beta rounds was for their devs to see what works/what's fun, and test the actual framework of the game. Like they said, at this point in sc2's development it hadn't even been announced.
I will say having played the beta, Stormgate is pretty fun. It needs a lot of work in every department, but once you get into a game it doesn't feel far from playing SC2
That's part of the problem though. It feels too similar to SC2 while at the same time not being as fun as SC2. I'm doubly unmotivated to play it for that reason. If it was a different enough experience to SC2 I could justify still wanting to play it just so I could play something different, but literally every game I played of the SG beta, I had to ask myself midgame why am I playing this instead of another game of SC2?
If you're going to make a game play almost exactly like a game that already exists it needs to be definitively BETTER than the game it's competing with. It isn't.
There's a TON of RTS games out there that manage to play very differently from each other to the point where I can like one more than the others but still want to play each of them at different times because I like the variety. I don't have that feeling for SG. I found no reason to want to keep playing it after I played the beta because it just felt too similar to SC2 while not being as fun.
Well for one, that the game will be supported going forward and have regular content/patches. Which SC2 certainly wont.
If you have criticism, post it and let the devs know, but if you expected a beta to live up to SC2 at 14 years of patches, then you set yourself up to be disappointed. The point of the beta rounds was for their devs to see what works/what's fun, and test the actual framework of the game. Like they said, at this point in sc2's development it hadn't even been announced.
Yes and no. Yes, it's good they are testing stuff and development goes on with live testing. And testing the underlying tech is very importan so there are no surprises at launch. No, because this games gonna release in 6 months and SC2 sure as hell was announced 6 month prior to release. That it is "only" EA release is their problem. When stuff costs money I expect said stuff to work fine
Announcement was actually 3 years prior to release July 27th 2010
StarCraft II is a sequel to the real-time strategy game StarCraft, announced on May 19, 2007, at the Blizzard World Wide Invitational in Seoul, South Korea.[9][10] It was eventually set to be released as a trilogy.[11][12]
They really should start to concentrate on doing their own thing and do less of "what Starcraft/ Blizzard did and didn't do"
I will say having played the beta, Stormgate is pretty fun. It needs a lot of work in every department, but once you get into a game it doesn't feel far from playing SC2
That's part of the problem though. It feels too similar to SC2 while at the same time not being as fun as SC2. I'm doubly unmotivated to play it for that reason. If it was a different enough experience to SC2 I could justify still wanting to play it just so I could play something different, but literally every game I played of the SG beta, I had to ask myself midgame why am I playing this instead of another game of SC2?
If you're going to make a game play almost exactly like a game that already exists it needs to be definitively BETTER than the game it's competing with. It isn't.
There's a TON of RTS games out there that manage to play very differently from each other to the point where I can like one more than the others but still want to play each of them at different times because I like the variety. I don't have that feeling for SG. I found no reason to want to keep playing it after I played the beta because it just felt too similar to SC2 while not being as fun.
Well for one, that the game will be supported going forward and have regular content/patches. Which SC2 certainly wont.
If you have criticism, post it and let the devs know, but if you expected a beta to live up to SC2 at 14 years of patches, then you set yourself up to be disappointed. The point of the beta rounds was for their devs to see what works/what's fun, and test the actual framework of the game. Like they said, at this point in sc2's development it hadn't even been announced.
Yes and no. Yes, it's good they are testing stuff and development goes on with live testing. And testing the underlying tech is very importan so there are no surprises at launch. No, because this games gonna release in 6 months and SC2 sure as hell was announced 6 month prior to release. That it is "only" EA release is their problem. When stuff costs money I expect said stuff to work fine
Announcement was actually 3 years prior to release July 27th 2010
Because SC2 didn't have an early access phase. Stormgate won't be finished in 6 months. In terms of where they are in development, SC2 hadn't been announced yet (Frost Giant's words not mine).
Early access is a way for them to make money while the game is still in development. And in theory, be able to tune the game based on feedback. A lot of devs are scummy and games end up in early access hell but with independent devs I'm not against the method.
SC2 had the budget to not need that, it wasn't announced until years into it's development. Can you imagine if the beta had only terran and zerg, no campaign, placeholder models, 1 map, and no tier 3 units?
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
I have given up hope on it.
I think there's too much baggage with RTS, kind of like fighter genre facing the same issue.
Command cards, lots of info dump, long game length. MOBA is even more complex but many grew up with it and sticked around like how RTS was for us, and doesn’t even need a campaign.
For all the talks about beginner friendly, look at stormgate, which part of it really was more beginner friendly than SC2?
RTS spun off quite a few genres like tower defence and I would even argue rim world (resources simulators) is part of RTS subgenre.
There is only 3 games I would recommend to my non PC gamer friend, Warcraft 3 TFT, SC2 and battle of middle earth (1&2) and honestly it’s a bit depressing how short this list is
So many new players want to enjoy RTS with 20min no rush, but few will stick around once they find out that just isn’t how the game is to be played
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
I have given up hope on it.
I think there's too much baggage with RTS, kind of like fighter genre facing the same issue.
Command cards, lots of info dump, long game length. MOBA is even more complex but many grew up with it and sticked around like how RTS was for us, and doesn’t even need a campaign.
For all the talks about beginner friendly, look at stormgate, which part of it really was more beginner friendly than SC2?
RTS spun off quite a few genres like tower defence and I would even argue rim world (resources simulators) is part of RTS subgenre.
There is only 3 games I would recommend to my non PC gamer friend, Warcraft 3 TFT, SC2 and battle of middle earth (1&2) and honestly it’s a bit depressing how short this list is
So many new players want to enjoy RTS with 20min no rush, but few will stick around once they find out that just isn’t how the game is to be played
Well, for me after BW and WC3 there was a safe haven in CoH 1 & 2 and DoW 2. All excellent games. Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak was also very good (Homeworld but in 2D space) but unfortunately didn't get big following even though there's still a group of people playing tournaments, doing community balance patches etc.
Currently I'm not looking for "true SC2 successor" or anything like it. I'm too old, can't (and don't really want to) do games that take >200apm.
I wish there were a bit more cerebral strategy games too. MechaBellum has great potential but for the Chinese New Year the devs have introduced what is called by the community a "chaos patch" which unfortunately changed the game fundamentals completely and I'm waiting for it to be rescinded (currently got toned down twice). It really split the community. Lower ranked people who didn't fully understand the game and just wanted big clashes love it while at the higher end of MMR it's pretty much unanimously loathed as it pretty much doesn't let you have and follow a coherent game plan any more (the patch adds semi-random free unit drops for both sides).
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
I have given up hope on it.
I think there's too much baggage with RTS, kind of like fighter genre facing the same issue.
Command cards, lots of info dump, long game length. MOBA is even more complex but many grew up with it and sticked around like how RTS was for us, and doesn’t even need a campaign.
For all the talks about beginner friendly, look at stormgate, which part of it really was more beginner friendly than SC2?
They're pushing a lot of QoL and noob-friendly features, automatic hotkeys, quick build, supply blocks being much easier to fix, using 1234 and QWER keys similar to mobas and fps games. And there's a much higher time to kill than SC2, nothing one-shots in the game for example. I think they also mentioned implementing in-game guides. For a beginner it's definitely more friendly than SC2.
But all that is just for 1v1. The real factor for getting new players is coop. It was the most played game mode in sc2, even more so when the game got attention with f2p. People love coop games. I've met quite a few people irl who played sc2 coop but would never touch ladder. Coop is gonna be Stormgate's flagship gamemode despite most of the vocal community being 1v1 diehards.
Having 3v3 as a serious game mode with heroes and new win conditions could work out great as well. More like a moba but with armies.
Speaking of RTS that do things differently there's also Dune: Spice Wars which I hear is pretty well received although it doesn't have all that many players.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I have no idea what it was called, but back in the early 2000s there was some kind of MMORTS (very, very indie). Kind of small scale in terms of units per side I wanna say. I barely played it (either couldn't get it to work or it cost money that young me didn't have maybe), so my recollection is really limited.
There were seasons, and a persistent like area control thing, with clans battling for them. I wanna say you had a really low unit count, maybe a hero unit of some sort. It was mega indie and didn't last all that long.
I think there were creeps a la WC3?
I only played it really, really briefly just before the game died.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I have no idea what it was called, but back in the early 2000s there was some kind of MMORTS (very, very indie). Kind of small scale in terms of units per side I wanna say. I barely played it (either couldn't get it to work or it cost money that young me didn't have maybe), so my recollection is really limited.
There were seasons, and a persistent like area control thing, with clans battling for them. I wanna say you had a really low unit count, maybe a hero unit of some sort. It was mega indie and didn't last all that long.
I think there were creeps a la WC3?
I only played it really, really briefly just before the game died.
EPT
